Destination travel guide

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the four content blocks returned and the cross-tool handoff pattern (related_pages slugs feed ot_search_rooms city_tag); only auth/rate-limit details are absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the returned content, followed by a short when-to-use sentence and one routing note. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical enumeration of examples is slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not define return values, yet it helpfully summarizes them. It covers purpose, trigger, and one downstream integration, leaving only edge-case behavior (pagination, empty results, locale of blog_query) unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so kind, place, max_chars and blog_query are already documented in the schema, including examples and defaults. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond implying that related_pages slugs (themes) are usable identifiers, which is indirect. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get the site's travel guide for a destination') and then enumerates the concrete payload: guide text, FAQ, related search pages with listing counts, and blog articles. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ot_search_rooms or ot_destinations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use when the user asks what a place is like or what to do there') and even routes a downstream step to ot_search_rooms via city_tag. It stops short of naming when a sibling (e.g. ot_destinations) would be the better pick, so it is strong context without explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.